Undergraduate Senior Thesis

SUSTAINABLEsocialspaceThe Understanding and Application of Social Space at Rutgers University’s Cook/Douglass Campus

WRITTEN AND ILLUSTRATED BY MICHELLE HARTMANN

SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL SPACE: THE UNDERSTANDING AND APPLICATION OF

SOCIAL SPACE AT RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

by Michelle Hartmann ‘14

A thesis submitted to the Honors Committee of the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements of The George H. Cook Scholars Program

Written under the direction of

INSTRUCTOR HOLLY NELSONOf the Department of Landscape Architecture

New Brunswick, NJ

April 10, 2014

SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL SPACE: THE UNDERSTANDING AND APPLICATION OF

SOCIAL SPACE AT RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

I have reviewed the project conducted by Michelle Hartmann and endorse its consideration for the George H. Cook Scholar Award

HOLLY NELSON, Project AdvisorOf the Department of Landscape Architecture

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS//Thank you to everyone who has assisted me with this process. The George H. Cook Scholars Program is an excellent experience for students to perform independent research.

A special thank you to my project advisor, Holly Nelson, for her support, excitement, and motivation through-out the process. Without her energy through discussion and motivation throughout the process, this project would not have reached its full potential. Her participation in this project has acted as a constant inspiration for my exploration and enthusiasm throughout the project

To our readers and project jury, Dr. Laura Lawson and Dr. Wolfram Hoefer. Thank you for your great feedback and insight during project milestone presentations and discussion.

Thank you to all the campus experts and students who have participated in this project. Every conversation I have had since the start of this project has helped me to understand the importance of their presence in the social spaces designers create on campus.

TABLE OF CONTENTS//INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL SPACETHE ROLE OF DESIGN IN RESEARCHRESEARCH METHODSABSTRACT

GLOSSARYCONCEPT FRAMEWORKSOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY STUDYING SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL SPACECAMPUS CONTEXT

THE SOCIAL USERUSERS IDENTITY AND GROUPINGTIME ANALYSIS UNDERSTANDING ACTIVIES AS DESIGN PROGRAMACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION AND ORGANIZATIONACTIVITIES ON CAMPUS

UNDERSTANDING SIZE AND TYPETHE SPATIAL TRANSLATION FIELDS PLAZAS YARDS POCKET PLAZAS BUS STOPS

CONNECTIVITY MODELSSTUDENT CONNECTIONSMASTERPLAN POTENTIAL PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION

RESEARCH

PEOPLE

ACTIVITY

SIZE

CONNECTIVITY

DESIGN

LESSONS

APPENDIX

BIBLIOGRAPHY

intr

oduc

tion

ABSTRACT//

This project aims to study social space through the principal research question “Can social space design increase campus sustainability?”. Sustainable social space is designed for longevity through its constant use by everyday people. This investigation approaches the complexity of social space dynamics as both a designed and spontane-ous experience. To do so, the research approaches the problem through an integrated bottom up process beginning with people. Outlined are the key elements intended to ensure the success social space in a campus context.

The method is designed to help identify existing social areas and integrate new elements specific to the site’s users, their desired activities, and the scale of the space. The booklet provides a series of chapters to explain each element of the exploration, and how it contributes to the topic as a whole.

This booklet will guide the reader through the methods, exploration, and conclusions inspired by observations of the campus lifestyle. The research presented is a comprehensive view of existing concepts, site observations, user inquiries, and speculated conclusions from a student’s perspective.

“WHAT ATTRACTS PEOPLE MOST, IN SUM, IS OTHER PEOPLE”

HOLLY WHITE

INTRODUCTION//

Social space is understood as any place, indoor or outdoor, where people spend time either alone or together with other people. Physically, these places take on many different forms but are distinguished by the frequency of people coming and going. Over time, they have evolved into designed and undesigned areas in the environ-ment that occur instinctively for the convenience of rest, meeting others, eating, and other human uses.

Despite their design, social spaces are dynamic; their success is dependent on their convenient relationship to people. As William Whyte describes, “what attracts people most, in sum, is other people”. Thus, the success of a social space, is based on the frequency of users coming and going from any given space. However, studying this phenomenon of social space is sometimes difficult to locate on a map. As Whyte describes social space is an experience, both planned and unplanned, with as much spontaneity as design. Therefore, to study it, in-vestigators must understand the user, their activities, and their daily lives, before they can begin to understand how they use it to ensure its success (Project for Public Spaces, 2014).

It is the flexibility of social space that fosters its complexity and individuality in each design discipline. In the field of landscape architecture, social space design aims to engage people and their interaction with outdoor enviornment and natural landscape. Designers prioritize natural views, microclimates, plant ecologies, aesthet-ics, and access for their users. They value the landscape as an oasis for relaxation. Like many designed places, these areas intend to provide the necessary elements to support the human relationship with nature (Sustain-able Sites Initiative, 2014).

SCOLLECT INFORMATION

FORM HYPOTHESIS

DESIGN EXPERIMENT

FAILURE?

COMPARE RESULTS

DRAW CONCLUSION

FORM THEORY

SUCCESS ?

OBSERVE SITE

ASK QUESTIONS

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

REVISE DESIG N

THE LINEAR MODEL

THE ITERATIVE PROCESS

HYPOTHESIS

THE DESIGN-TIFIC METHOD //Design research, like traditional scientific research, aims to generate the discus-sion of a topic preceding extensive exploration of a scientific problem, theory, or question. Similar to the scientific method, the design process follows a series of steps to achieve a desired outcome.

The scientific method, as it is widely known, proceeds as follows: (1) Collect information, (2) formulate hypothesis, (3) design experiment to test hypothesis, (3) perform experiment, (4) observe test results (note: if experiment fails to meet the criteria of the hypothesis, reevaluate the hypothesis), (5) Compare results of multiple experiments, (6) draw conclusions, and (7) formulate theory to test with additional experiments (Chauhan, 2013). Similarly, the design process begins with the collection of data to provide insight for the topic of research. However, as designers begin their ‘experimentation’ process the original framework begins to change as additional questions are integrated through additional observation. This flexibility and iterative process is attributed to the design method’s heavy emphasis on observation for inspiring insights, formulating questions, testing hypotheses, and generating design solutions (Zeisel, p.90)

Physically, social space is designed. It is a collection of elements placed by the designer in a way to affect behavior in that space. However, to understand

tHE ROLE OF THE DESIGNER IN RESEARCH //Scientific research is used to advance the potential solutions to outstanding problems. Design, as a research method has the same premise. Designers compile the existing data and research on an outstanding problem and investigate potential solutions. However, unlike a scientist, designers are challenged with the difficulty of or-ganizing both quantitative and qualitative data. The process explores the existing factual data of an issue, understands background theory, but investigates the potential solutions through creativity and out-of-the box thinking. Design is the experiment of this process. Through this method, it is the job of the designer to, compile, organize, and interpret all of the existing site specific, theory-related, and case study data sources.

human response, designers need to reevaluate the design process. Human be-havioral sciences introduce the idea, if you put a bench somewhere, we won’t necessarily sit on it. Social space design uses both social science and design to develop a more integrated design process that evaluates the user’s needs and the designer’s desires simultaneously. In order to do so, the designer must evaluate the user’s intrinsic behaviors and uses in space, the design intention, and the problems of the existing conditions. This method of evaluating existing design function through the scope of its users is called Environmental-Behavior Research (Lawson 2014)

When investigating the topic of social space, these methods are integrated. So-cial space, unlike other design practices, requires the balance of methods in the scope of social science and design. Both fields of study are vital to the complete understanding of observing places as a physical and experiential phenomenon. Designed social spaces have evolved from a simplified design process that tends to disregard the character of its users and context. This project reinstates the importance of site analysis and behavioral understanding when designing social space.

RESEARCH| BACKGROUND REVIEW

OBSERVATION| DATA COLLECTION

UNDERSTANDING| DATA ORGANIZATION & SYNTHESIS

EXPLORATION| POTENTIAL DESIGN SOLUTION

DISCUSSION| CONCLUSIONS

Understanding social space begins with a the understanding of its theories and concepts. In design, it is important to understand what is out there (i.e. case studies) before you can begin to critique it and create something new. The research component of this project includes a literature review, case studies explo-ration, and an understanding of existing concepts and theories regarding social space. The background gathered in this component was critical to the organization and interpretation of the additional steps of the process.

Observation is a key component of all design processes. In this project, students and faculty/staff were observed in their campus habitat. Data was collected from and organized into a series of questions to be explored further in later phases of the project methods.

Questions, as designers see them, are the tools used to distinguish the problem and overall goal of the de-sign concept. This step helps the designer see the problem and begin to model a framework for approach-ing and investigating it.

Exploration is a design step that synthesizes the conceptual research with observation. It allows designers to draw conclusions and begin to understand the problem and envision potential solutions.

The design process fosters consistant feedback and discussion. This reoccuring process happens repeti-tively throughout the process, but is synthesized in a section of the booklet called “lessons”. This chapter shows the investigator’s organization and application of the feedback in a way to understand the overarch-ing takeaways of the project.

project METHODs// HOW TO APPROACH THE QUESTION

rutgers university

cook/douglass campus

cook/douglass campus

“social core”

PROJECT AREA

Campus context//As Jane Jacobs described in a short film called “Neighborhoods in Action”, “a [city] heart is not a disembodied thing, that you just set down arbitrarily, that you just set down like choosing a shopping center site. It needs to have an anatomy and the anatomy, the clue to it is what you always hear, the hangout….”. In this short film Jacobs discusses her observations about the success of American cities, and the identifi-cation of their “City center”. She describes how these geographic locations, are not just set down arbitrarily, picked out of a hat for a development; rather, they are selected strategically by where people ‘hangout’ (Vin-nitskaya, 2012).

When understanding the relationship of social spaces to the broader context of Cook/Douglass campus, and even Rutgers University, it is a similar phenomenon as described by Jacobs. The diagram shown [right] shows this social spatial relationship. Rutgers Uni-versity (the largest circle in the upper diagram) can be understood as the regional perspective, and Cook/Douglass the city within that region. However, like Ja-cobs describes, cities are not entirely social. Instead, they contain a center or, in this case, a social center, where users have the tendency to gather.

The lower diagram depicts this relationship through the narrow scope of Cook/Douglass campus. The boundaries of the Ruth Adams building to the Environ-mental and Natural Sciences (ENR) building, can be delineated as the “social zone”. This areas is desig-nated through the frequency of students using campus space for academic, residential and other everyday activities.

The campus landscape acts as both a home and place of work for most of its everyday us-ers. Thus the campus social zone, located in the crux of campus, acts as the “town” for the community to socialize and perform daily ac-tivities.

The diagram [right] shows a land use map in accordance to the campus lifestyle. This map indicates areas on campus where people go/teach class, eat lunch, socialize, and sleep. As seen from the map, the academic center and community core, sit at the forefront of the cam-pus with the other amenities surrounding it. In a sense, these areas act as the “city center” Ja-cobs describes, and have great potential zone for sustainable site development.

However, zones along the edge (i.e. the resi-dential and underutilized areas) have great op-portunity for other open space but don’t seem centralized enough for constant use.

ACADEMIC AREAS

COMMUNITY (PUBLIC) AREAS

ON CAMPUS LIVING AREAS

UNDER-USED AREAS

underutilized edge

academic center

residential buffer

community core

RESE

ARCH

RESEARCH//

Understanding the principles and existing concepts of social space is the first step in considering its problems on campus. The Research chapter of this project gives the reader a brief background some designer language, the existing concepts of social space, and two case studies of similar campus style projects. This portion of the exploration helped structure the framework of the rest of the exploration.

GLOSSARY//An approach which examines people’s activities and decision-making processes within their perceived worlds.

A much-used term with little specific meaning but usually refers to a social group characterized by dense networks of social interaction reflecting a common set of cultural values. Often, but not necessarily, geographi-cally concentrated.

The science and art of design, planning, management and stewardship of the land. Landscape architecture involves natural and built elements, cultural and scientific knowledge, and concern for resource conservation to the end that the resulting environment serves a useful and enjoyable purpose. Successful landscape archi-tecture maximizes use of the land, adds value to a project and minimizes costs, all with minimum disruption to nature.

A professional who designs, plans, and manages outdoor spaces ranging from entire ecosystems to residen-tial sites and whose media include natural and built elements; also referred to as a designer, planner, consul-tant. Not to be confused with landscapers, landscape contractors or nurserymen.

A preliminary plan showing proposed ultimate site development. Master plans often comprise site work that must be executed in phases over a long time and are thus subject to drastic modification.

The activities planned or designed for a site

Scale is the relative size of one part of a landscape to another. Scale may be the proportion or ratio of size to other components in the landscape.

A term often used in a general sense to indicate geography, location or distance, but also used specifically by human geographers to acknowledge the socially constructed nature of environments.

Any place, indoor or outdoor, where people spend time either alone or together with other people.

A much contested idea with many different interpretations but generally alludes to economic development in a manner which can be sustained in the long-run for future generations. (urban social sustainability - Social life within cities that is relatively free of inequality and conflict and that can be sustained in the long run. A compo-nent of sustainability.)

A landscape designed, installed, and maintained in a residential, commercial, or public setting that is func-tional, maintainable, environmentally sound, cost effective, and visually pleasing throughout the entire life of that landscape.

The idea that humans have an innate desire to occupy a specific territory to satisfy needs of safety, security and privacy and to enable the expression of personal identity. Sometimes called the ‘territorial imperative’.

BEHAVIORAL APPROACH

COMMUNITY

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

MASTER PLAN

PROGRAM

SCALE

SPACE

SOCIAL SPACE

SUSTAINABILITY

SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE

TERRITORIALITY

* Referenced University Of Minnesota’s Sustainable Land Glossary and The Asla Glossary for definitions

the balance// UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL SPACE THROUGH DESIGN

SOCIAL SCIENTIST

SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL SPACE

ENVIRONMENTALISTnature

people

Sustainable social space aims to balance the needs of people and nature through the subjects of social science and environmentalism. Understanding the principles behind these opinionated platforms is important when exploring an integrated approach. Both subjects explore the subject of social space from a different perspec-tive and frame potential design solutions around that perspective. The following gives an example of some key figureheads from both extremes and how they approach the problem.

SUSTAINABLE SPACE AIMS TO INSPIRE SOCIAL INTERACTION AMONG PEOPLE, WHILE “PROVIDING THE NATURAL

BENEFITS ESSENTIAL FOR HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL HEALTH”.

SUSTAINABLE SITES INITIATIVE

TO BE USED WITHOUT BEING COMPLETELY USED UP OR DESTROYED. INVOLVES METHODS THAT DO NOT COMPLETELY USE UP OR DESTROY NATURAL RESOURCES AND ARE ABLE TO LAST OR CONTINUE FOR A LONG TIME. MERIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY

What is sustainable Social space?

What is sustainability?

+ =

SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY//

WILLIAM HOLLY WHITE//

William Hollyingworth Whyte was a leading contributor to the understanding of cities as a product of human behavior and social nature. His most widely known theories come from a study per-formed in the early 1970’s called the Street Life Project. His findings reestablished social spaces as a product of design and pedestrian behavior (Project for Public Spaces, 2010). Some of his most widely known work was published in the book and movie counterpart, Social Life of Small Urban Places. This project walked through the small behavioral details we experience without consciousness, and the patterns that emerge amongst all users. Some of his most keen observa-tions include:

• Proportionofpeopleingroupstellsalotaboutthesuccessofaplace.Highnumbersof groups of 2s an 3s calls for successful plazas.• Themostsocialableplaceshavethegreatestnumberofindividuals• “Thenumberoneactivityispeoplelookingatotherpeople”• “Rightanglesaregreatplacesforpeopletogather”.Somefeaturesareputinplace discourage sitting/socializing (spikes on a ledge, etc.), but we find a way around them• “peopledon’toftenstoptotalkinthemiddleofalargespace.”• “Peopletendtositwherethereareplacestosit”,butprefertheabilitytomovethemas they see fit

William Holly Whyte, Jane Jacobs, and Jan Gehl are leaders for their observation and criticisms in design of modern cities. Understanding and interpreting their methods is critical to the study of social space. Additionally, similarities between urban life, and campus life, allow for many of their conclusions to be applied to the context of Rutgers University.

social science//

JANE JACOBS//

Jane Jacobs was a pivotal critic of urban planning in the early 20th century. Many of her obser-vations, based out of Greenwich Village in New York City, posed radical reforms of the current design of major cities. Her observational techniques were the first to establish social space as a spontaneous interaction among people, not necessary only occurring in design places (Martin, 2006).

//JAN GEHL

Jan Gehl is an urban planner, architect, and critic of the process for designing cities. He has always seen cities as a structural and social frame for the daily life of the people; today, cities are often designed otherwise. He an interview with Jared Green from the American Society of Landscape Architects, Gehl explains, “…planners were to look after the plan, the architects were to look after the buildings. With modernism, they were free of the context of the city. They placed it on open lands surrounded by grass. Nobody was responsible for looking after the people who were to move in these new structures” (ASLA.org, 2014). His major criticisms lie in the role of design in the landscape and plan of the city context. He claims, many designers are distracted by the aesthetic of art and form, forgetting that this place must function for people. This personal, eye-level, view of the landscape acts as the primary motivation for this project.

environmentalism//

JOHN MUIR//

John Muir is a classical environmentalist from the late 1800s. Much of his work is devoted to the understanding that nature, in its rawest form, provides amazing benefits to human body. He advocated for conservation and preservation of land to be left untouched by development and only visited by humans.

//MICHAEL BRUNE

Michael Brune, exectutive director of the Sierra Club and John Muir contemporary counterpart, is also an environmentalist. He shares the same core ideals of conservation and preservation as Muir, and sees nature as an asset to be “kept clean”. As a contemporary conservationist, Brune understands the concept of sustainability and agrees that our resources must be conserved. However, in reference to social space, he believes nature is best utilized in its natural form (forests, wetlands, etc.). Brune thinks it is important that we introduce humans to the natural landscape but only to explore as a visitor, never to be fully integrated (Sierra Club, NP).

SUSTAINABLE SITES INITIATIVE//

The Sustainable Sites Initiative (SSI) is an interdisciplinary initiative founded on the platform of voluntary guidelines and performance benchmarking for sustainable design. The American Society of Landscape Architects, the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, and the United States Botanical Garden created the program to help convey the importance of sustainable practices and management in a selection of design categories. The categories include: hy-drology, soils, vegetation, materials, and human health and well being. For the purpose of this project, it is important to understand the details of creating places to promote human health and well being that promote sustainability.

According to the SSI analysis, there are four key practices to help inspire good health and well being for people experiencing sustainable design: (1) make the site user-friendly, (2) focus on natural views, (3) educate site users and keep culture and history alive, and (4) provide spaces for mental restoration, social interaction, and physical activity.

//AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

The American Society of Landscape Architects, a national organization of landscape ar-chitecture professionals, has developed a series of toolkits and models for the design of social space. These models investigate the ideal conditions for environmental, economic, and social sustainability at a wide variety of scales.

The social model uses a person-focused framework to enable design of sustainable com-munities at different scales. Using their core principles of social sustainability (seen to the right), designers are advised to think about a person’s quality of life when developing land on a regional, community, or site scale. The model emphasizes the importance of human health benefits, and their multifaceted advantages on the environmental and economic lev-els (i.e. multiple modes of transportation provide healthier environments with limited emis-sion pollution and reduce overall housing and transportation costs) (ASLA, 2014).

1

123456

234

MAKE THE SITE USER FRIENDLY

FOCUS ON NATURAL VIEWS

EDUCATE SITE USERS AND KEEP CUTLURE AND HISTORY ALIVE

PROVIDE SPACES FOR MENTALRESTORATION, SOCIAL INTERACTION,AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

MEET THE LONG TERM HEALTH AND SOCIAL NEEDS

EMPOWER RESIDENTS

GIVE EQUAL ACCESS TO HEALTHY PLACES

ALLOW CHOICE FROM MULTIPLEMODES OF TRANSPORTATION

CHOICE OF TRANSPORTATION

INSPIRE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DESIGN PROCESS

THE STUDENT PERSPECTIVE| A COGNITIVE MAPPING EXERCISE

97%

2 groups of students 1 map per studentDraw a mental map of Cook/Douglass campus. On the map indicate places you like to hangout, or your favorite places to be. Note, or identify, at least one key feature or building on the map to help me understand or orient where you are on campus.

In addition to your map, feel free to write any words on your sheet to help describe your favorite places (is it shady? Do you hangout there alone or with friends? Is it quiet or loud?

If you have colored pens or markers feel free to use color. When you are done with your map please write your name and graduations year in the bottom right corner.

You will have 15 minutes to perform the exercise

Understanding social space from the professional perspective was vital to the initial research of this project. However, when understanding social space at the campus scale, it is important to understand how students define social space.

The cognitive mapping project was designed to approach two different groups of students asking them to distinguish where they spend time on campus. With little direction, the students were asked to map there favorite places on campus provid-ing word cues for atmospheric understanding. Interestingly enough, with no speci-fication of indoor or outdoor space, 97% of students perferred spaces that were outdoors, Passion Puddle being the highest ranked social space.

The maps to the left show examples of the mapping results. Students were surveyed in two different size groups, one organizational group (20-25 stu-dents) and one large lecture hall (100-150 students). The results were then scanned and analyzed for both quantitative (where the place was, how many times it was chosen), and qualitative (what they liked about the space, etc.).

The results of this project lead to the exploration of student life in greater detail and how that can shape design. Additionally, the results from this pro-cess were used in a deeper understanding of the ideal locations for these spaces on campus

THE COMPLEXITIES OF SOCIAL SPACE//The goals published by The Sustainable Sites Initiative for sustainable social space, are not innaccurate, just some-what incomplete. Sustainable social space is a place to meet, not only the needs of today’s daily visitors, but also promote the longevity for future users on campus. The process of understanding social space, looks at teh people using space in great detail to help grasp an understanding of their daily lives, and how social space fits into it. Sus-tainable social space offers program for a variety of users. Some program is universal; whereas others are site spe-cific. This goal is achieved based on the analysis of a selection of factors which include, site scale, context, design program, and human scale. Social spaces in the campus context must not only accommodate the large quanitites of campus users that frequent them, but also provide a quality of experience to promote sustainable living styles.

Social Space, as it was observed, was comprised of four core principles that were infinitiely connected and co-dependent on each other to prove social space sustainable. These principles included: understanding people, activities, size of social space, and their connections, or overall accessibility. The diagram to the right empha-sizes this point

LOCATION

ESSENCE OF PLACE

CORE PRINCIPLES

PROXIMITY TO HIGHLY USED AREAS AND CONVENIENT FOR PEOPLE

CONTEXT, HUMAN COMFORT AND DISCOMFORT

PEOPLE, ACTIVITIES, SIZE, AND CONNECTIVITY

1

2

3

PEOPLE

CONNECTIVITY

SIZE OF SOCIAL SPACE


ACTIVITES

COMMUNITY

INTIMATE(2-3)

LARGE GROUP(8-15)

SMALL GROUP(4-6)

INDIVIDUAL

RUNNING

BIKING

SKATE-BOARDING

KICKING AROUND A BALL

THOROWING A FOOTBALL

SOCCER GAME

FOOTBALLGAME

FRISBEE

WALKING

CLASSEATING

READING

HOMEWORK

PATHWAY

how people move

desirable views

versatile paving

PLACE TO REST

BUS STOP

PATHWAY FIELD

PLAZA

YARDPOCKET PLAZA

PEOPLEWATCHING

CONVERSATION

PEOP

LETHE SOCIAL USER//Social space is shaped by the daily life of the human user. Thus it is necessary to explore the user’s schedule, routine, and day-to-day activities and how they relate to the use of outdoor places. Despite Jan Gehl notion that lifestyles are ephemeral, the daily schedules of students, faculty and staff, will be consistent in the campus context.

INDIVIDUAL

FACULTY AND STAFF

INDIVIDUAL INTIMATE GROUP SMALL GROUP LARGE GROUP

USER GROUPS//

USER IDENTITY//

The “student user” identifies the group of people using social space that call Rutgers University “home” for the next four years. This relationship to campus translates into at 24 hour use of the campus. It is important to identify this group because they have a wide array of potential uses for cam-pus (sleeping, eating, studying, etc.). Their fast-paced lifestyle and rhythmic schedules due to course times offer a variety of opportunities for the use of social spaces.

Understanding users as they translate into space is critical to the study of social space. Despite their identity, people occupy places and participate in activities in groups of variable in size. The initial complexity web (located on p. 23) visually displays the user group to activity relationship.

Faculty and staff users, unlike students, do not live on campus. Therefore, how they use their time, and perceive the campus is different than that of the student user. Faculty and staff come to campus to work. Therefore, with the exception of the overnight shifts of some custodial and emergency staff, most faculty and staff members work between the 9AM to 9PM, and break for a lunch break.

STUDENTS

24-hour day// THE STUDENT LIFE ON CAMPUS

THE COMMUTER is a student who does not spend their full day on campus. In most cases their commute time can span anywhere from 15 minutes to over an hour. Additionally, their schedule requires a need for performing the activities any on campus student could do at home (i.e. eating, studying, etc.)

THE ON CAMPUS ACADEMIC is a student whom is heavily invested in their academic life and lives on campus. Their daily activies include mostly homework and class with a limited commute. Students with similar schedules have less necessity to be outside.

12pm 12pm

24 hrs 24 hrs

12am 12am

PARTICIPANT 1 PARTICIPANT 2

SLEEP

COMMUTE

CLASS

EATING

INVOLVEMENT

EXERCISE

WORK

HOMEWORK

LEISURE

The diagrams below show the wide variation between the way students spend their days on campus. The student’s perception of campus as “home” makes it the place that they spend 24 hours of their day. Below, the pie charts represent a full day of living on campus. Each student represents different on a small sample of the wide variety of campus lifestyles

THE ON CAMPUS INVOLVED student spends much of their day on the go. Students with similar lifestyles may not have much leisure time to spend outdoors, but their day is heavily spent commuting from place to place on campus.

THE LITTLE-BIT-OF-EVERYTHING student often has a full schedule, but has time for leisure and exercise throughout the day. This student, in particular, also commutes from another Rutgers University campus. Therefore, their freetime, and incon-venience of going home brings opportunity for outdoor use.

12pm 12pm

24 hrs 24 hrs

12am 12am

PARTICIPANT 3 PARTICIPANT 4

12AM 1AM 2AM 3AM 4AM 5AM 6AM 7AM 8AM

TIME

FREQ

UENC

Y OF

POT

ENTI

AL U

SERS

OF O

UTDO

OR S

PACE

(STU

DENT

S)

9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM 7PM 8PM

COMMUTING STUDENTS

POTENTIAL TIME SPENT OUTDOORS

CAMPUS SCHEDULE

55-MINUTE CLASS SCHEDULE



FACULTY & STAFF WORKDAY

9PM 10PM 11PM 12AM

FACULTY TEACHING CLASS WORKDAY

SHORT INTERVALS OF TIME BETWEEN CLASSES IN DAYLIGHT

SHORT INTERVALS OF TIME BETWEEN CLASSES AT NIGHT

COMBINATION OF SHORTER AND LONGER BREAKS OF TIME IN DAYLIGHT

LONGER BREAKS OF TIME IN DAYLIGHT

ONE LONG BREAK OF TIME IN DAYLIGHT

COMBINATION OF LONG AND SHORT BREAK OF TIME IN DAYLIGHT

LONGER BREAKS OF TIME IN DAYLIGHT AND NIGHT

STUDENT TIME ANALYSIS// A SPECULATION OF TIME SPENT OUTDOORS BASED DAILY SCHEDULES


TIME

FREQ

UENC

Y OF

POT

ENTI

AL U

SERS

OF O

UTDO

OR S

PACE

(STU

DENT

S)

9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM 7PM 8PM

COMMUTING STUDENTS

POTENTIAL TIME SPENT OUTDOORS

CAMPUS SCHEDULE





9PM 10PM 11PM 12AM


SHORT INTERVALS OF TIME BETWEEN CLASSES IN DAYLIGHT

SHORT INTERVALS OF TIME BETWEEN CLASSES AT NIGHT

COMBINATION OF SHORTER AND LONGER BREAKS OF TIME IN DAYLIGHT

LONGER BREAKS OF TIME IN DAYLIGHT

ONE LONG BREAK OF TIME IN DAYLIGHT

COMBINATION OF LONG AND SHORT BREAK OF TIME IN DAYLIGHT

LONGER BREAKS OF TIME IN DAYLIGHT AND NIGHT

STUDENT TIME ANALYSIS// A SPECULATION OF TIME SPENT OUTDOORS BASED DAILY SCHEDULES

This diagram shows the relationship between the student’s daily schedule relative to the time of classes on Cook/Douglass campus . The illustration [left] supports the understanding that student’s have versatile schedules including an infi-nite combination of 55, 80, and 180 min-ute class blocks. Thus, their schedules provide variety in their amount free time and their potential to spend it outdoors.

Additionally, visualizing the campus schedule in a lateral format, helped understand where overlap was an how those times had the potential for peaks in student frequency in campus social space.

The research behind this illustration is speculative and based on an understand-ing of variability in student scheduling. The schedule combinations are hypotheti-cal and represent a model for that poten-tial programs

OF O

UTDO

OR S

PACE


TIME

FREQ

UENC

Y OF

POT

ENTI

AL U

SERS

(FAC

ULTY

& S

TAFF

)

9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM 7PM 8PM 9PM 10PM 11PM 12AM






COMMUTING STUDENTS

POTENTIAL TIME SPENT OUTDOORS BY FACULTY OR STAFF

POTENTIAL TIME SPENT OUTDOORS BY FACULTY

CAMPUS SCHEDULE

TRAVEL TIME BETWEEN CLASSES TAUGHT IN DAYLIGHT AND NIGHT

TRAVEL TIME BETWEEN CLASSES TAUGHT IN DAYLIGHT

TRAVEL TIME BETWEEN CLASSES AND A “LUNCH BREAK” IN DAYLIGHT

TIME BEFORE AND AFTER WORK DAY AND A “LUNCH BREAK”

TIME BEFORE WORK DAY AND A “LUNCH BREAK”

ONE “LUNCH BREAK” OF TIME

TIME AFTER WORK DAY AND A “LUNCH BREAK”

FACULTY/STAFF TIME ANALYSIS// A SPECULATION OF TIME SPENT OUTDOORS BASED DAILY SCHEDULES

OF O

UTDO

OR S

PACE


TIME

FREQ

UENC

Y OF

POT

ENTI

AL U

SERS

(FAC

ULTY

& S

TAFF

)

9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM 7PM 8PM 9PM 10PM 11PM 12AM






COMMUTING STUDENTS

POTENTIAL TIME SPENT OUTDOORS BY FACULTY OR STAFF

POTENTIAL TIME SPENT OUTDOORS BY FACULTY

CAMPUS SCHEDULE

TRAVEL TIME BETWEEN CLASSES TAUGHT IN DAYLIGHT AND NIGHT

TRAVEL TIME BETWEEN CLASSES TAUGHT IN DAYLIGHT

TRAVEL TIME BETWEEN CLASSES AND A “LUNCH BREAK” IN DAYLIGHT

TIME BEFORE AND AFTER WORK DAY AND A “LUNCH BREAK”

TIME BEFORE WORK DAY AND A “LUNCH BREAK”

ONE “LUNCH BREAK” OF TIME

TIME AFTER WORK DAY AND A “LUNCH BREAK”

FACULTY/STAFF TIME ANALYSIS// A SPECULATION OF TIME SPENT OUTDOORS BASED DAILY SCHEDULES

Similar to the previous diagram, this shows a similar understanding, but from the faculty and staff perspective. Unlike the students, their schedules are rela-tively more consistent with the exception of over-night staff and instructors/profes-sors. In most cases, these employees participate at work from 9am to 5pm with a typical 1 hour lunch break midday.

The information gathered from this illus-tration allowed for the understanding of faculty and staff in primary need of seat-ing for eating lunch, given it is the biggest use of their break.

As previously mentioned, the information articulated in this diagram is speculative and related to the campus schedule and the typical day of an employee at Rutgers University

ACTI

VITY

activites//Social space aims to embrace the social life of people and provide for their everyday needs. It is designed to actively integrate the needs of its users. Therefore, social space does not take on a singular form, nor does it have a list of “must-haves”. These sites are unique to the places they are located and the people they accom-modate for.

Leisure describes the category of activities students and faculty/staff do in their “free time”. These activities can include reading, checking your phone, checking social me-dia programs (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.), people watching, daydreaming, etc.

Transportation describes the category of ac-tivities and methods for students and faculty/staff to move around campus. In this case, transportation activities may occur when stu-dents go to class, faculty go to lunch, etc. These activities may include, walking to class, biking to class, etc. Often, these activities may be paired with another during their use.

Eating describes the the selection of activities associated with consuming food. Often, they correlate with the meals of the day (breakfast, lunch, and dinner), but provide a different es-sence of the activity based on the user group. For example, this category can include, “grab-bing a bite to eat”, “meeting a collegue for lunch”, and “coffee with a friend”.

Work Related describes the category of ac-tivities students and faculty/staff experience related to work or school. These activities can include, academic school, homework, check-ing emails, class, etc.

Recreation describes the category of activities for students and faculty/staff involv-ing exercise. This category can include all recreational including both formal and infor-mal actiivies related to exercise. It is impor-tant to remember, that recreation is an activity that does not alway include lines on a field. For instance, “kicking around all ball” is just as much exercise as a soccer game.

Conversation describes the the selection of activities associated with consuming food. Often, they correlate with the meals of the day (breakfast, lunch, and dinner), but provide a different essence of the activity based on the user group. For example, this category can include, “grabbing a bite to eat”, “meeting a collegue for lunch”, and “coffee with a friend”.

PEOPLE

CONNECTIVITY

SIZE OF SOCIAL SPACE


ACTIVITES

COMMUNITY

INTIMATE(2-3)

LARGE GROUP(8-15)

SMALL GROUP(4-6)

INDIVIDUAL

RUNNING

BIKING

SKATE-BOARDING

KICKING AROUND A BALL

THOROWING A FOOTBALL

SOCCER GAME

FOOTBALLGAME

FRISBEE

WALKING

CLASSEATING

READING

HOMEWORK

PATHWAY

how people move

desirable views

versatile paving

PLACE TO REST

BUS STOP

PATHWAY FIELD

PLAZA

YARDPOCKET PLAZA

PEOPLEWATCHING

CONVERSATION

ACTIVITES

LEISURE

TRANSPORTATION

CONVERSATION

EATING

RECREATION

WORK RELATED

LEISURE

TRANSPORTATION

CONVERSATION

EATING

RECREATION

WORK RELATED

MEET A COLLEGUE

TAKING THE BUS

JOGGING

WALKING

DRIVING

ROLLER BLADING

GRABBING LUNCH

GRABBING COFFEE

READING

PEOPLE WATCHING SUN TANNING

DOING SUDOKU

LISTENING TO MUSIC

LISTENING TO MUSIC

PLAYING AN INSTRUMENT

BLOGGING

NAPPING

PLAYING CARDS

GOING ON FACEBOOK

CHECKING TWITTER

CHECKING INSTAGRAM

CHECKING EMAILS

CLASS

FACULTY/STAFF MEETINGDOING HOMEWORK STUDYING WITH A GROUPREADING

MEETING WITH A PROFESSOR

STUDYING FLASHCARDS

WRITING A PAPERGOING TO OFFICE HOURS

GETTING COFFEE WITH A FRIEND

LUNCH WITH A FRIEND

GOING TO THE DINING HALL

GRABBING A SNACK

EATING PACKED LUNCH

CHATTING

GOSSIPING

PERFORMING

STORY TELLING PREACHING

TEACHING

YOGA

PLAYING CATCH

DANCING

FRISBEE GOLF

WIFFLE BALL

BIKING

SKATEBOARDING KICKING AROUND A BALL

THROWING A FOOTBALL

SOCCER GAME

FOOTBALL GAME

LACROSSE

FRISBEE

RUNNING

DOG WALKING

WALKING

MEET A COLLEGUE

CHATTING

GOSSIPING

SKATEBOARDING

BIKING

SCOOTERING

This diagram helps to visualize the rela-tionship between program (daily activi-ties) and place scale. The graphic gives examples of potential campus program and coordinates different activities with the size places needed to engage in them.

In this diagram, the space needed in-creases as the programs are listed from right to left. This illustration helps the reader understand that different daily activities call for different sizes of space

It is important to note that ‘pathway’ and ‘spatial’ node have been isolated in this model. A spatial node, is an area or place to come to rest; whereas a pathway is a place of movement. It is important to un-derstand this comparision when reading the diagram.

INCREASING SPATIAL DIMENSION NECESSARY

PATHWAY

ACTIVITES

LEISURE

TRANSPORTATION

CONVERSATION

EATING

RECREATION

WORK RELATED

LEISURE

TRANSPORTATION

CONVERSATION

EATING

RECREATION

WORK RELATED

MEET A COLLEGUE

TAKING THE BUS

JOGGING

WALKING

DRIVING

ROLLER BLADING

GRABBING LUNCH

GRABBING COFFEE

READING

PEOPLE WATCHING SUN TANNING

DOING SUDOKU

LISTENING TO MUSIC

LISTENING TO MUSIC

PLAYING AN INSTRUMENT

BLOGGING

NAPPING

PLAYING CARDS

GOING ON FACEBOOK

CHECKING TWITTER

CHECKING INSTAGRAM

CHECKING EMAILS

CLASS

FACULTY/STAFF MEETINGDOING HOMEWORK STUDYING WITH A GROUPREADING

MEETING WITH A PROFESSOR

STUDYING FLASHCARDS

WRITING A PAPERGOING TO OFFICE HOURS

GETTING COFFEE WITH A FRIEND

LUNCH WITH A FRIEND

GOING TO THE DINING HALL

GRABBING A SNACK

EATING PACKED LUNCH

CHATTING

GOSSIPING

PERFORMING

STORY TELLING PREACHING

TEACHING

YOGA

PLAYING CATCH

DANCING

FRISBEE GOLF

WIFFLE BALL

BIKING

SKATEBOARDING KICKING AROUND A BALL

THROWING A FOOTBALL

SOCCER GAME

FOOTBALL GAME

LACROSSE

FRISBEE

RUNNING

DOG WALKING

WALKING

MEET A COLLEGUE

CHATTING

GOSSIPING

SKATEBOARDING

BIKING

SCOOTERING

INCREASING SPATIAL DIMENSION NECESSARY

SPATIAL NODES

BUS STOP POCKET PLAZA PLAZAYARD FIELDPATHWAY

LISTENING TO MUSICSKATEBOARDING CHECKING INSTAGRAM STUDYING TAKING THE BUS STORY TELLING DOING HOMEWORK WALKING EATING LUNCH GROUP PROJECT GOSSIPING RUNNING CHATTING NAPPING

This diagram shows the re-lationship between activities performed by students Cook/ Douglass campus and the places they most commonly occur. This diagram empha-sizes the idea that programs like “walking” can be used for different purposes. Addi-tionally, it illustrates the idea that activies are not always connected to a single type of place (i.e. a soccer game has to be played on a field).

BUS STOP POCKET PLAZA PLAZAYARD FIELDPATHWAY

LISTENING TO MUSICSKATEBOARDING CHECKING INSTAGRAM STUDYING TAKING THE BUS STORY TELLING DOING HOMEWORK WALKING EATING LUNCH GROUP PROJECT GOSSIPING RUNNING CHATTING NAPPING

SIZE

spatial scale//However, despite the uniqueness of each space’s aesthetic and the user group they provide for, we all experi-ence spatial constants. These are measurements in space that make us feel comfortable. They are not mea-sured, per se, but are inherently known by people, and provide a level of comfort to the user.

NOTE: The dots indicated on ALL MAPS distinguish the social scale of a designated area, or the ‘popu-larity’ of these places. Larger circles mark existing social areas that are frequently visited by students and faculty/staff users.

13

2

45

6

7

FIELD SPACE//The “Field” typology can be described as a physical, outdoor, planned social space. Fields, are designed as large-scale recreational areas, with a primary focus on physical activity. However, because of their popularity and ac-commodation of large numbers of students, they have the opportunity to bring people together for other programs such as: large events, performances, outdoor classes, and informal activities. The “Field” typology of social space is most closely related to open space. It can be described as, a large scale softscape that indirectly promotes social interaction through both formal and informal recreation, large events, etc. .

On campus, few of these areas are used to their full potential. Both Skelley Field and Antilley Field are very under utilized and others are just used for their pathways. Regardless of their physical condition, much of the human disregard for field space relates to its lack of intimate scale and relative location to high student frequency areas on campus.

INTENDED ACTIVITIES

SPATIAL INVENTORY

1 PASSION PUDDLE

2 ANTILLES FIELD

3 FIELD BY HICKMAN HALL

4 FIELD BY GIBBONS

5 RUTGERS INN AND CONFERENCE CENTER (RICC)

6 RECREATION CENTER FIELD

7 SKELLEY FIELD

CURRENT USE ACTIVITIES

USER GROUPS

PHYSICAL CHARACTER

GRASSOPENNESS

LARGEMOSTLY SUNNY

TREES ALONG THE EDGESPUBLIC USES

123

45

67

8

910

PLAZA SPACE//The “Plaza” space can be defined as a larger scale hardscape area that inspires social interaction through its prox-imity to living and learning. This typology, much like the “pocket plaza” can be described as a physical, outdoor, social space. However, unlike the pocket plaza, these hardscapes are typically larger scale.

On campus, the plazas that are most successful are in areas of high frequency traffic where students tend to go to relax, eat lunch, study for an exam, etc. However, in some cases, if designed outside a building with less student traffic, plazas can be very unsuccessful and highly under utilized. An example of this is the plaza located in the front of the Recreation Center on Biel Road. Despite the foot traffic passing through that uilding, it is not the place for students to stop and sit for rest, eating, studying, etc.

PHYSICAL CHARACTER

INTENDED ACTIVITIES CURRENT USE ACTIVITIES

USER GROUPS

SPATIAL INVENTORY

1 DOUGLASS CAMPUS CENTER ENTRY PLAZA

2 DOUGLASS CAMPUS CENTER SIDE PLAZA

3 DOUGLASS CAMPUS CENTER DINING AREA

4 HICKMAN HALL PLAZA (NORTH)

5 HICKMAN HALL PLAZA (SOUTH)

6 NEW GIBBONS PLAZA (NORTH)

7 NEW GIBBONS PLAZA (SOUTH)

8 RICC BACKYARD PLAZA

9 COOK CAMPUS CENTER PLAZA PAVED (HARDSCAPE)

PROVIDES BENCHES AND TABLESBALANCE OF SUN AND SHADE

FEW TREES NEAR BUILDINGS

PUBLIC USES

1

2

39

10

87

654

YARD SPACE//The “yard” space introduces a new level of privacy and territoriality into social space. Because of their location in proximity to student residential communities, yard space can be determind as semi-private, softscape areas where students can relax and spend time outside.

Currently, the campus conditions leave these ares under-utilized by design with great opporunity for revitilization. The spaces, now, typically are not large enough for the programed “backyard activities” and provide few amenities to inspire students to ‘get outdoors’. From a design perspective, areas like these have great potential to promote sustainable living in students, and they should be some of the first to be analyzed and reenvisioned.


PHYSICAL CHARACTER

USER GROUPS

SPATIAL INVENTORY

1 ART HISTORY YARD

2 JAMESON YARD

3 FORAN HALL YARD

4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE CENTER YARD

5 VORHEES HALL YARD

6 STARKEY APARTMENT YARDS

7 NEWELL APARTMENT YARDS

8 NEWELL APARTMENT YARDS

9 LIPMANCOTT YARD

10 HENDERSON APARTMENT YARD

GRASS (SOFTSCAPE)LOCATED NEAR RESIDENCES

PROVIDES TABLESFEW TREES

SEMI-PRIVATE USES

1

2

3

4 5

6789

POCKET PLAZA SPACE//The “pocket plaza” is a typology created to describe the small gateways or entrances to buildings. These social spaces can be described as physical, outdoor, designed spaces. They are intentional social spaces created to in-spire outdoor interaction prior to the beginning to class. Unlike other typologies, the “pocket plaza” typically only provides a few amenities to inspire this interaction (i.e. benches, trash cans, cigarette disposals). However, the suc-cess of these spaces is often higher than others because of the convenience they have to the student. Because of their proximity to classrooms, they provide the ability for a student to spend time outside up until 30 seconds before their scheduled class time.

On Cook/Douglass campus, these spaces are some of the most successful. Despite there size, the convenient lo-cation and proximity to high pedestrian traffic areas makes them highly used. However, although these spaces are successful, they are not the most beautiful or experiential. Perhaps, with improved design, they would be sought out by students and even more successful and desirable than their current conditions.


PHYSICAL CHARACTER

USER GROUPS

SPATIAL INVENTORY

1 WALLER HALL

2 BLAKE HALL

3 BARTLETT HALL

4 MARINE AND COASTAL SCIENCE BUILDING

5 COOK RECREATION CENTER

6 NICHOLAS HALL

7 LIPPINCOTT HALL

8 KATZENBACH HALL

9 LOREE HALL PAVED (HARDSCAPE)SMALL SIZE

LOCATED AT BUILDING ENTRANCEPROVIDES BENCHES

PUBLIC USE

1

2

3

45

6

7

89

BUS STOP SPACE//The “bus stop” typology can be described as a social space that is physical, outdoors, and spontaneous. Although physically designed structurally, its social role in the landscape is spontaneous to its users. Unlike a plaza or recre-ational field, bus stops primarily receive high volumes of users in short peak intervals. The bus stop social space is unique because it must accommodate large numbers, for short, rhythmic durations of time (until the bus arrives).

On Cook/Douglass campus, most bus stops are under utilized as a designed social space. Yes, by default, they pro-mote interaction, but they lack an enjoyable aesthetic quality that could improve experience. They have a tendency to lack the additional benefits of open space and its role in human health and well being.


PHYSICAL CHARACTER

USER GROUPS

SPATIAL INVENTORY

1 JAMESON-CABERET THEATER

2 RED OAK LANE

3 LIPMAN HALL

4 FOOD SCIENCE

5 BIEL ROAD

6 HENDERSON APARTMENTS

7 KATZENBACH

8 NEW GIBBONS

9 COLLEGE HALL

PAVED (HARDSCAPE)SMALL SIZE

LOCATED NEAR ROADSPROVIDES SMALL SHELTER

PUBLIC USES

CONN

ECTI

VITY

The network//Connectivity among social space systems is similar to that of a greenbelt or open space network. As stated by the Sustainable Sites Initiative making sites “user-friendly” is important to their success and usability. It has been clearly emphasized that people will go to places they find convenient; convenience comes with connectivity.

NOTE: This map indicates the social space scales of frequency under the previously determined typolo-gies. This map begins to help the investigator un-derstand where the most popular places are located and how to affectively connect them to increase the success of under-utilized spaces.

connectivity models//

Understanding the various ways designers can con-nect spaces is critical to the design of a “social system”. This study was performed by the current George H. Cook Canidate, Jessie Woods, and my-self to understand the different models available for connecting spaces. Each of the diagrams shown ex-plores a different methodology of connecting spaces independent of their popularity and spatial scale.

[top left & bottom left] The first model explores the connections between space in a linear model that starts at a ‘beginning’ and terminates at an ‘end’. This model is common when trying to connect the net-work to a larger context. This model aims to hit each space at least once with limited circular connection.

The next model [top right] demostrates the connec-tion between social spaces of high popularity. The system has a series of primary, secondary, tertiary pathways that aim to connect spaces of high, me-dium and low frequency

[bottom right] The final model exploration empha-sizes the importance of a circular system around the “social core” of campus with a series of secondary and tertiary pathways connecting the the outer edges of the system. This is an important feature for cam-puses spaces because the academic areas are more highly utilized than the residential outer edge.

Single Path Linear System

Single Path Linear System (George St)

Primary/Secondary Network System

Radial Network System

//student CONNECTIONS

The diagrams to the left show a variety of student routes on campus. The buildings in red denote academic buildings of high frequency use by users on a daily basis.

The data collection process for the high frequency buildings comes from my co-collaborators, Jessie Woods and Rebecca Cook. Together we distin-guished these building through a series of platforms including social media tags and indication, student interviews, and personal perspectives.

The routes mapped help to validify the theory of the social core and its use in connection of social space

DESI

GN

GATHER PEOPLE

CONNECT HOTSPOTS

HIGHLIGHT ESSENCE OF PLACE

CREATE COMFORTABLE PLACES

CREATE GATHERING PLACES FOR DIFFERENT SIZE GROUPS AND ACTIVITIES

CREATE NETWORKS TO CONNECT PEOPLE TO WHERE THEY WANT TO GO

CREATE PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO THAT FEEL COMFORTABLE

CREATE PLACES THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THE CAMPUS CHARACTER

1234

design solution// DESIGN GUIDELINES

The analysis of social space is a process that is highly dependent on the core principles organized in this booklet (people, activities, size, and connectivity). Therefore, the design of thesis spaces should be equally as intricate. The guidelines presented aim to take an on-the -ground approach when understanding the location for newly design and redesigned social spaces.

CAMPUS “HOT SPOTS”

LEGEND:

STUDENT ROUTES

design solution// REDESIGN CASE STUDY

The guidelines presented aim to identify areas of redesign based on an ‘on-the-ground’ student perspective. Areas identified for redesign have are highly active with student traffic.

The Douglass Campus Center is the first exam-ple of this phenomenon. Because of its activ-ity, the Douglass Campus Center’s uses makes it a place with no backdoor. The movement of students around this building present excellent opportunities for the redesign of existing and the integration of new spaces to promote sustain-able living styles.

The diagram to the left shows student routes in relation to the pre-determine “hot spot build-ings on campus. From the routes students take, it is clear, there is no “back side” to the Doug-lass Campus Center.

CAMPUS “HOT SPOTS”

LEGEND:

STUDENT ROUTES

The diagram below shows the student activity along the designated routes seen in the dia-gram to the left. It is clear that they are heavily frequented by students.

JAMESON BUS

COLLEGE HALL BUS

HICKMAN HALL

design solution// SITE ISSUE IDENTIFICATION

This map identifies the surrounding context of the site’s main artery route taken by students. The route con-nects two of the major transit areas (Jameson bus stop and College Hall) to one of the most highly used lecture halls, Hickman Hall. Along this route their are a wide variety of views, both good and bad, as well as desirable features, and other amenities.

design solution// SITE IMPRESSION

This map identifies re-envisions the route’s context based on the impressions I saw throughout the route. This map exercise was critical to the designation of sites for redesign.

design solution// SITE REDESIGN AREAS

The previous exploration lead to potential re-design solutions for two critical sites. The site located on the south and east side of the building are current “eye-sores” for students in their daily routes to Hickman Hall. The image to the right shows these areas in relation to the building, with existing site photos below.

NEW SOCIAL SPACE

NEW SOCIAL SPACE

REDESIGNED SOCIAL SPACE

NEW SOCIAL PATHWAY

NEW SOCIAL PATHWAY

design solution// POTENTIAL SITE-SCALE MASTERPLAN CONNECTION This map shows the potential masterplan connection this site provides for the campus as a whole. By envisioning campus masterplanning from a student “on the ground” perspective designers are able to optimize the efficency and desirability of student routes on campus.

design solution// PLAZA RE-DESIGN VISUALIZATION

SOUTH SIDE PLAZA VISUALIZATION

EAST SIDE PLAZA VISUALIZATION

LESS

ONS

DESIGN FOR A DESIRE RESPONSE/ PRO-GRAM

UNDERSTAND EXISTING LANDSCAPE CON-DITIONS

EVALUATE SITE USERS AND DESIRED PRO-GRAMS

DEVELOP MESSAGE OR CONCEPT OF DE-SIGN

SOLVE SITE ISSUES

INTEGRATE DESIRED PROGRAM

OBSERVE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF DESIGN

ANALYZE HUMAN ACTIONS AND BEHAVIORS

UNDERSTAND EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS

UNDERSTAND PERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL SPACE RELATIONSHIP TO PROGRAM

ANALYZE THE RELATIONSHIP OF PROGRAM TO HUMAN SCALE

TRANSLATE HUMAN SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP TO PHYSICAL SPACE

DEVELOP MESSAGE OR CONCEPT OF DESIGN

SOLVE SITE ISSUES

PROVIDE NEW AMENITIES TO SUPPORT NEW BEHAVIORS

OBSERVE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF DESIGN

PRIOR TO GHC PROCESS SUBSEQUENT TO GHC PROCESS

PROCESS LESSONS//DESIGN LESSONS//

DESIGN PROCESS DESIGN PROCESS

The process of this project started with me exploring space on a physical level, similar to the way I explored sites before. I understood scale in dimension and ne-glected the importance of people in space

As I continued in this process, I started to understand the unique qualities to studying social space. Social space is created for people. Therefore, the scale is not about the physical dimension, but the scale of sociability and how it relates to the frequency of people in space.

This project was designed to redefined scale as more than a physical dimension but the amount of use by people.

Chauhan, Y. & add. authors (2013). Scientific Method. InBritannica Encyclopedia (Vol. Online, p. NP). Chi-cago, Illinois: Britannica Encyclopedia, Merriam Webster. Retrieved February 22, 2014, from http://www.britannica.com/topic/528929/con(Chauhan, 2013)

Curl, J. S. (2006). A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (2 ed.). Oxford [etc.]: Oxford University.

Gehl, J., & Svarre, B. (2013). How to study public life. Washington: Island Press.

Howard T. Hall The Hidden Dimension:Hall, Howard T. (1990) Book. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books(Hall, 1990)

Knox, P., & Pinch, S. (2000). Urban Social Geography, An Introduction (4 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pear-son Education.

Martin, D. (2006, April 25). Jane Jacobs, Urban Activist, Is Dead at 89. The New York Times. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/books/25cnd-jacobs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Lawson, L. (Director) (2014, February 17). Observation and Diagramming.Social and Cultural Aspects of Design. Lecture conducted from Rutgers University , New Brunswick.(Lawson 2014)

Sustainability Toolkit: Social Models | asla.org. (n.d.). American Society of Landscape Architects. Retrieved April 10, 2014, from http://www.asla.org/socialmodels.aspx

University of Minnesota. “Glossary.” SULIS. http://www.sustland.umn.edu/design/gloss.htm (accessed April 10, 2014).

Vinnitskaya, Irina . “Jane Jacobs: Neighborhoods in Action / Active Living Network.” ArchDaily. ArchDaily, 12 May 2012. Web. 10 Apr. 2014. <http://www.archdaily.com/231401/jane-jacobs-neighborhoods-in-action-active-living-network/>.

WORKS CITED//

Documents

Undergraduate Senior Thesis